B1G Officials' Interpretation of the Targeting Rule

[okeefe4prez]

The rule requires both "target[ing]" and "initiat[ion]".

Lomax clearly "initiated" contact to the head or neck area, but did he also "target" the head or neck area?

The word "target" could be interpreted either to require intent or not--it is not clear. As an aside, given the ordinary usage of the word "target" and the severity of the penalty, I would expect that the rule drafters intended that it be a foul of either intent or reckless abandon, but nonetheless, the rule is ambiguous as to whether intent is required.

Regardless of whether "target" is interpreted to require intent or not, it does, in my opinion, eliminate the situation in which the player being hit moves his head or neck into a position in which it was not previously after the tackler has initiated his tackling action.

The rule needs to recognize initiation of an unchangeable linear path of the defender and give the defender the benefit of the doubt. A defender could be lined up for a form tackle and move through that motion only to have the offensive player move directly into that unchangeable linear path and trigger a penalty and suspension. It is absurd.

 

[LG210]

I don't think he targeted. I think he was running over to make a play, the ISU player started going down, and Lomax collided with him a quarter second later.

Things are happening so fast out there, its ridiculous that they have rules that attempt to read so much into what is going on.

I'd have to re-watch it, but when I initially saw it, I was also of the opinion that the receiver's head and neck were moving on a vertical plane after Lomax began his tackling action.

 

[LG210]

The rule needs to recognize initiation of an unchangeable linear path of the defender and give the defender the benefit of the doubt. A defender could be lined up for a form tackle and move through that motion only to have the offensive player move directly into that unchangeable linear path and trigger a penalty and suspension. It is absurd.

Exactly.

 

[LG210]

Note that the rule says, "When in doubt, its a foul."

Actually, based on your quote, the rule says "When in 'question', it is a foul."

A technical reading of this clause means that no replay could possibly overturn a call on the field of violation of this rule, since the call is in "question" when it goes to the replay booth.

Great job, rule drafters....

 

[hawkinn3]

My only issue is kicking a player out of the game for doing it. You can't expect a ref or replay crew to make that big of a decision on the spot like that. If it was particularly egregious have the penalty set by the conference for the next game after careful review.

But to boot a player for something he didn't intend (in most cases) or couldn't avoid? That's BS.

 

[IowaFan81]

Actually, based on your quote, the rule says "When in 'question', it is a foul."

A technical reading of this clause means that no replay could possibly overturn a call on the field of violation of this rule, since the call is in "question" when it goes to the replay booth.

Great job, rule drafters....

It could be questioning the refs judgement of the hit. Also want to note that I believe it was a B1G replay official working the ISU/Iowa game.

 

[okeefe4prez]

My only issue is kicking a player out of the game for doing it. You can't expect a ref or replay crew to make that big of a decision on the spot like that. If it was particularly egregious have the penalty set by the conference for the next game after careful review.

But to boot a player for something he didn't intend (in most cases) or couldn't avoid? That's BS.

Gotta kick him out of the game. Here's why - when we go to the National Title game it will be our final game of the year. Davis will be done after that. Without this rule, he would destroy Jameis on the first snap and the game would be over and Davis would still get to play.

 

[LG210]

It could be questioning the refs judgement of the hit. Also want to note that I believe it was a B1G replay official working the ISU/Iowa game.

I know--I was being a bit snarky on that because I believe it is a poorly drafted rule.

I do think that if there is any contact to the head or neck, the phrasing of the rule makes it nearly impossible for a replay crew to overturn a call of violation on the field.

 

[LG210]

Gotta kick him out of the game. Here's why - when we go to the National Title game it will be our final game of the year. Davis will be done after that. Without this rule, he would destroy Jameis on the first snap and the game would be over and Davis would still get to play.

Green.

 

[uihawk82]

You can't defend the rule and then criticize how it's being enforced. It makes you look...not smart.

The Lomax play was a textbook violation of the rule and demonstrated 100% correct and consistent enforcement of said rule.

Either get rid of it altogether, or STFU, sit back, and enjoy all of the flags and ejections.

You are an idiot by not thinking the Minny player's tackle was legal..

YOu and your 63 posts need to go.

 

[uihawk82]

You are an idiot by not thinking the Minny player's tackle was legal..

YOu and your 63 posts need to go.

Or your 63 posts are under a new username of some former dickwad who was banned from this site.

 

[Hawknick]

The call on Lomax was complete garbage. The contact wad clearly not initiated by Lomax, both players were going for the ball and had an equal right to it.

One that should have been called but was not was the week before against Ball State. Bullock was clearly targeted by that bsu player with the long hair. He left his feet and there was helmet to helmet contact. Yet there was no call. The rule is just too ambiguous, and the way it is called not consistent at all especially considering the player has to miss a full game.

Also notice in the clown game that it was a late flag, and it happened near the clown sideline. So it should have been a no call but for the influence from the team.

 

[OttoWagonhurst]

You are an idiot by not thinking the Minny player's tackle was legal..

YOu and your 63 posts need to go.

What the fluck are you even talking about? I never mentioned Minnesota and haven't even seen them play this year.

Take your own advice and GTFO, jackwagon. You will NOT be missed.

 

[OttoWagonhurst]

Also notice in the clown game that it was a late flag, and it happened near the clown sideline. So it should have been a no call but for the influence from the team.

Except that, you know, it was UPHELD by replay, which means by definition that it was correct.

What we have learned the most in this thread is that Iowa has a lot of dumb fans

 

[Billso]

Or your 63 posts are under a new username of some former dickwad who was banned from this site.

That's not possible. Alts are not permitted here.

 

[Billso]

The rule needs to recognize initiation of an unchangeable linear path of the defender and give the defender the benefit of the doubt. A defender could be lined up for a form tackle and move through that motion only to have the offensive player move directly into that unchangeable linear path and trigger a penalty and suspension. It is absurd.

Yup. Additionally, I award you 31 points for use of "unchangeable linear path" in a sentence.

 

[gohawkz]

I do realize that the Lomax call was made by a Big 12 officiating crew. My point is that the B1G officials seem to have a different definition of the rule when you look at Cockran and Lomax plays together.

I doubt that one conference decided to let them take their heads off and another said lets be real ticky tack and throw people out of the game for nothing.

There are bad refs everywhere. With rules like this that can take some judgement, unfortunately you will see calls that are not consistent.

 

[okeefe4prez]

Yup. Additionally, I award you 31 points for use of "unchangeable linear path" in a sentence.

They need to work it into the rule book and have the announcers and refs say it a bunch. "The defensive player had commenced an unchangeable linear path, therefore by rule there is no penalty for targeting." Proles would feel smart by repeating it.

 

[uihawk82]

What the fluck are you even talking about? I never mentioned Minnesota and haven't even seen them play this year.

Take your own advice and GTFO, jackwagon. You will NOT be missed.

Hey, ottoshaginwurst, did you even click on the links in the OP's starting posting.

There are two web links in that post, do you know what a web link is? I highly doubt it,

So just shut up and leave it alone.

Go back to the first post in this thread and click on the Minnesota cochran link and tell me lomax's is even close to that type of hit.

 

[Hawk4Fan]

The fact that it was upheld should tell you something, genius.

Yeah that the officials are totally incompetent when it comes to the rule.